Only 48,000 today?

[Guest Rafa]

Look at the last 10 finals

 

98 Inter v Lazio - fair enough two good sides, but there was only 2 Italian sides in the CL

 

99 Parma v Marseille - Marseille were a poor poor side, and Parma's best days were behind them

 

00 Galatasaray v Arsenal - Both sides dumped out of the CL which emphasises how pathetic it had become

 

01 Liverpool v Alaves - Dippers dumped out of the CL, Alaves are very ordinary Spanish side relegated the next year

 

02 Feyenoord v Dortmund - Feyenoord's star players two failed Premiership strikers, Dortmund pale shadows of 97

 

03 Porto v Celtic - Porto are the exception to all of this, but to emphasise what a joke it is the final was nearly an Oporto derby, with Boavista 7 minutes away from the final.

 

04 Valencia v Marseille - Valencia dumped out of the CL, and Marseille came TENTH in France

 

05 CSKA v Sporting - Joke

 

06 Sevilla v Boro - Biggest joke of all

 

This competition has become something for the likes of Spurs, who will never get anything better than this, to get excited about, we know better than anyone how dull and uninspiring it has become.

 

Just looking at the finals isn't really a true picture though, cos if that was the case you can say the same for the CL when Porto won it against AS Monaco.

 

Fact is - you look at 2001 and 2004 for instance (where the winners wheren't actually dumped out of the CL by the way), and both where excellent UEFA Cup seasons. In 2001 Liverpool, Barcelona, Roma, Inter Milan, Ajax and Porto where in the competition . And in 2004 Valencia, Barcelona, Liverpool, Benfica, Roma, Inter Milan and Celtic where in the competion. Which is why just looking at the final doesn't tell the whole story as most of these teams are often in the CL, so the quality of the competition was high.

 

Although I do agree the UEFA Cup isn't all that anymore-  but that's because of this stupid group stage! Take that away, and it'd be good again.

 

The last good UEFA Cup season was 2004 when Valencia won it, and that was the last season before they bought the group phase in, not a coincidence imo.

 

 

[madras]

BTW I wonder if the average Spurs fan finds Kingdawson embarrassing?

 

I know I would if a Newcastle fan went around spouting shite like he does.

 

Not embarrassed by his comments but doesn't mean to say I agree with them either.  Both Newcastle and Spurs' attendances dived in their bleak years, both are currently getting near capacity attendances currently.  I would be more embarrassed if I was a Blackburn or Boro fans who in the past couple of years have been playing Uefa cup football to half empty stadia in spite of concessionary ticket prices to attract a half decent team.  That's embarrassing imho.

 

How's it embarrassing?  The UEFA Cup is shite, and boring, we're shite, have been for 3 years yet we've had two UEFA QF appearances, and one semi final appearance in that time.  We're in the so called hardest group and we've pissed it.  It's a joke cup for sides like Tottenham and Boro to get all giddy about, but we've fucked up so badly, we have no hope of CL football for a while.  Hand on heart if we were rich enough to do without being in the UEFA Cup I'd be delighted if we weren't in it.  It's a complete joke competition.  In the UEFA Cup we've played about 40 odd games in 3 years, and lost two, us yes, only two.  The fact is your smaller clubs your Tottenham's get all emotional about it as they never get in Europe anyway.

 

What is embarrassing is a club taking only 400 to St James' Park for an FA Cup replay in 1999, and getting 17,000 in the Premiership one week against the likes of Villa and Wimbledon, and when a proper club plays you, there's 30 odd thousand at the Lane (4/12/93).

 

 

The Uefa Cup a joke competition?  Suppose Newcastle got fed up winning it? :roll:

In the unlikely event that we win it, I will say exactly the same.  It's been pure shite since 1997/1998 when they started ****ing on with letting second placed teams in the CL.  We benefitted in 97/98 as it happens with CL football but so ****.  When you've played in the UEFA Cup as much as we have, you will know, which is why I said the UEFA Cup is a tournament for nothing clubs like Spurs, Villa, Boro, Fulham to get all giddy about.  We're 17th in the League, we end up in the group of death, and we win all our games with our reserves.  You can kid yourselves all you like that beating the likes of Club Bruges is an achievement but it's not.  Under-achievement for Newcastle in the UEFA Cup based on our turnover and transfer expenditure is not winning it.  That sounds arrogant but it's true.  Hand on heart of the sides in it right now, with the strongest XI's, only Sevilla are clearly a better side than us, which emphasises my point on what a true joke cup this is.  Even Spurs are capable of the last 8 I feel which underlines all the above points.

the champions league did have to change though,quite often the teams in the uefa cup were out performing the previous years chmaps in their domestic leagues.the uefa cup isn't a joke,it just isn't top quality.

[Guest Phil K]

Spurs are hardly doing anything decent in the league, with that "amazing" line up....

 

True, but still better to be in the top half of the league than not.

You should be on the telly or something with insightful comments like that.

I find it amusing they're having a go at us for 48,000 - only THIRTEEN thousand more than they got !!!!

We're p*ssed off at Shepherd and Roeder, and on the verge of outright boycott of the club in protest, 9 goals in 14 games, in relegation bother, yet STILL get THIRTEEN THOUSAND (I think it worth the capitals) more than they get.

Both visiting sides - Wigan and Portsmouth - were hardly big draws - neither take many with them.So if we're bad - WHAT THE HELL DOES THAT MAKE SPUD FANS ??

[Guest alex]

Aye, Pompey fans had a 700 mile round trip for a match they could watch on the telly. I thought their support was canny considering but they were nowhere near taking up their full allocation.

[Stevie]

BTW I wonder if the average Spurs fan finds Kingdawson embarrassing?

 

I know I would if a Newcastle fan went around spouting shite like he does.

 

Not embarrassed by his comments but doesn't mean to say I agree with them either.  Both Newcastle and Spurs' attendances dived in their bleak years, both are currently getting near capacity attendances currently.  I would be more embarrassed if I was a Blackburn or Boro fans who in the past couple of years have been playing Uefa cup football to half empty stadia in spite of concessionary ticket prices to attract a half decent team.  That's embarrassing imho.

 

How's it embarrassing?  The UEFA Cup is shite, and boring, we're shite, have been for 3 years yet we've had two UEFA QF appearances, and one semi final appearance in that time.  We're in the so called hardest group and we've pissed it.  It's a joke cup for sides like Tottenham and Boro to get all giddy about, but we've fucked up so badly, we have no hope of CL football for a while.  Hand on heart if we were rich enough to do without being in the UEFA Cup I'd be delighted if we weren't in it.  It's a complete joke competition.  In the UEFA Cup we've played about 40 odd games in 3 years, and lost two, us yes, only two.  The fact is your smaller clubs your Tottenham's get all emotional about it as they never get in Europe anyway.

 

What is embarrassing is a club taking only 400 to St James' Park for an FA Cup replay in 1999, and getting 17,000 in the Premiership one week against the likes of Villa and Wimbledon, and when a proper club plays you, there's 30 odd thousand at the Lane (4/12/93).

 

 

The Uefa Cup a joke competition?  Suppose Newcastle got fed up winning it? :roll:

In the unlikely event that we win it, I will say exactly the same.  It's been pure shite since 1997/1998 when they started ****ing on with letting second placed teams in the CL.  We benefitted in 97/98 as it happens with CL football but so ****.  When you've played in the UEFA Cup as much as we have, you will know, which is why I said the UEFA Cup is a tournament for nothing clubs like Spurs, Villa, Boro, Fulham to get all giddy about.  We're 17th in the League, we end up in the group of death, and we win all our games with our reserves.  You can kid yourselves all you like that beating the likes of Club Bruges is an achievement but it's not.  Under-achievement for Newcastle in the UEFA Cup based on our turnover and transfer expenditure is not winning it.  That sounds arrogant but it's true.  Hand on heart of the sides in it right now, with the strongest XI's, only Sevilla are clearly a better side than us, which emphasises my point on what a true joke cup this is.  Even Spurs are capable of the last 8 I feel which underlines all the above points.

the champions league did have to change though,quite often the teams in the uefa cup were out performing the previous years chmaps in their domestic leagues.the uefa cup isn't a joke,it just isn't top quality.

It's the biggest joke in football.  Palermo, who are no where near the size of us, have never been in it in their history yet their chairman is on record as saying he'd be quite content if they get knocked out so they can concentrate on the league.  When small clubs are showing this much contempt towards the competition, it just goes to show the people across Europe are sharing my sentiments.

 

As for teams in the UEFA Cup out performing teams in the European Cup....so ****.  It has always been the competition for the individual Champions of Europe, that's why it was initially called the European Champions Cup, which became the UEFA Champions League in 1992.  It's never called the European Champions and 2nd, 3rd and 4th placed League.  The reason all of Liverpool's, Madrid's, AFC Ajax, FC Bayern Munchen's successes were so special is, they not only proved they were the best side in their domestic competition but also against all the other Champions from the previous season.  Say in 1985, when Everton won the league, (I'm not having a dig at Heysel here), but if that event hadn't of occured you think Liverpool should've been involved in the European Cup for the 85/86 season, because they were a better side?  It's a joke argument.

 

Rafa is right to point out in 2001 and 2004, the last 16 got a bit interesting, but that shit is few and far between.  Look when we were in it after our 16 year absence it was class, we got on paper a tough Belgian side even though we pissed them, and in the SECOND ROUND end up against one of Spain's strongest sides, who eventually put us out on away goals, and if we'd won that we'd have had Parma, who were 2nd in Serie A, in the THIRD ROUND!  That's the way it was always meant to be.  Contrast that to our three opening opponents in 2004/2005, some suicide bombers from Palestine, Bnei Sakhnin, a side full of real life Borat Sagidyev's but with less talent, Tblisi and fuckin a side full of Greek waiters, Panionios, who ended up relegated!!  Yet you can sit there and tell me the European format in it's present state is working??!?!?!!?

 

Greed has killed it.  It's been shite since 1999 on the whole, which also coiincided with the bigger nations have four CL sides instead of four.  UEFA killed it, greed killed it, and to me anyone that says the CL should be for the best four sides in a country has no appreciation for how football was, and is a product of UEFA and Rupert Murdoch's greed.

[Martin Lol]

Spurs are hardly doing anything decent in the league, with that "amazing" line up....

 

True, but still better to be in the top half of the league than not.

You should be on the telly or something with insightful comments like that.

I find it amusing they're having a go at us for 48,000 - only THIRTEEN thousand more than they got !!!!

We're p*ssed off at Shepherd and Roeder, and on the verge of outright boycott of the club in protest, 9 goals in 14 games, in relegation bother, yet STILL get THIRTEEN THOUSAND (I think it worth the capitals) more than they get.

Both visiting sides - Wigan and Portsmouth - were hardly big draws - neither take many with them.So if we're bad - WHAT THE HELL DOES THAT MAKE SPUD FANS ??

 

Not me if you read my posts again.  Spurs' home ticket allocation was sold out and Newcastle's was about 1000 shy of doing the same.  I don't see any reason to have a pop about this as there's very little difference in my book.  The fact that Newcastle's attendance was 13000 more is down to the size of the stadium, not the support in it.

[Ally]

The UEFA Cup has turned into a bit of a joke, especially at this stage, but i'd absolutely love it if we won it.

[Martin Lol]

The UEFA Cup has turned into a bit of a joke, especially at this stage, but i'd absolutely love it if we won it.

 

Word.

 

As Rafa said, the competition has never been the same since the group stage was introduced.

[Stevie]

Spurs are hardly doing anything decent in the league, with that "amazing" line up....

 

True, but still better to be in the top half of the league than not.

You should be on the telly or something with insightful comments like that.

I find it amusing they're having a go at us for 48,000 - only THIRTEEN thousand more than they got !!!!

We're p*ssed off at Shepherd and Roeder, and on the verge of outright boycott of the club in protest, 9 goals in 14 games, in relegation bother, yet STILL get THIRTEEN THOUSAND (I think it worth the capitals) more than they get.

Both visiting sides - Wigan and Portsmouth - were hardly big draws - neither take many with them.So if we're bad - WHAT THE HELL DOES THAT MAKE SPUD FANS ??

 

Not me if you read my posts again.  Spurs' home ticket allocation was sold out and Newcastle's was about 1000 shy of doing the same.  I don't see any reason to have a pop about this as there's very little difference in my book.  The fact that Newcastle's attendance was 13000 more is down to the size of the stadium, not the support in it.

 

:lol:

 

Most deluded people in the United Kingdom. 

[Nobby]

48,743

 

250 fans off 49,000, 14,000 more than you.  :roll:

[Stevie]

It's a bigger gate than Tottenham have has since before Ardiles and Villa.

 

It irritates me when people think of them as anything more than a Charlton Athletic.

[Taylor Swift]

BTW I wonder if the average Spurs fan finds Kingdawson embarrassing?

 

I know I would if a Newcastle fan went around spouting shite like he does.

 

Not embarrassed by his comments but doesn't mean to say I agree with them either.  Both Newcastle and Spurs' attendances dived in their bleak years, both are currently getting near capacity attendances currently.  I would be more embarrassed if I was a Blackburn or Boro fans who in the past couple of years have been playing Uefa cup football to half empty stadia in spite of concessionary ticket prices to attract a half decent team.  That's embarrassing imho.

 

How's it embarrassing?  The UEFA Cup is shite, and boring, we're shite, have been for 3 years yet we've had two UEFA QF appearances, and one semi final appearance in that time.  We're in the so called hardest group and we've pissed it.  It's a joke cup for sides like Tottenham and Boro to get all giddy about, but we've fucked up so badly, we have no hope of CL football for a while.  Hand on heart if we were rich enough to do without being in the UEFA Cup I'd be delighted if we weren't in it.  It's a complete joke competition.  In the UEFA Cup we've played about 40 odd games in 3 years, and lost two, us yes, only two.  The fact is your smaller clubs your Tottenham's get all emotional about it as they never get in Europe anyway.

 

What is embarrassing is a club taking only 400 to St James' Park for an FA Cup replay in 1999, and getting 17,000 in the Premiership one week against the likes of Villa and Wimbledon, and when a proper club plays you, there's 30 odd thousand at the Lane (4/12/93).

 

 

The Uefa Cup a joke competition?  Suppose Newcastle got fed up winning it? :roll:

In the unlikely event that we win it, I will say exactly the same.  It's been pure shite since 1997/1998 when they started ****ing on with letting second placed teams in the CL.  We benefitted in 97/98 as it happens with CL football but so ****.  When you've played in the UEFA Cup as much as we have, you will know, which is why I said the UEFA Cup is a tournament for nothing clubs like Spurs, Villa, Boro, Fulham to get all giddy about.  We're 17th in the League, we end up in the group of death, and we win all our games with our reserves.  You can kid yourselves all you like that beating the likes of Club Bruges is an achievement but it's not.  Under-achievement for Newcastle in the UEFA Cup based on our turnover and transfer expenditure is not winning it.  That sounds arrogant but it's true.  Hand on heart of the sides in it right now, with the strongest XI's, only Sevilla are clearly a better side than us, which emphasises my point on what a true joke cup this is.  Even Spurs are capable of the last 8 I feel which underlines all the above points.

the champions league did have to change though,quite often the teams in the uefa cup were out performing the previous years chmaps in their domestic leagues.the uefa cup isn't a joke,it just isn't top quality.

It's the biggest joke in football.  Palermo, who are no where near the size of us, have never been in it in their history yet their chairman is on record as saying he'd be quite content if they get knocked out so they can concentrate on the league.  When small clubs are showing this much contempt towards the competition, it just goes to show the people across Europe are sharing my sentiments.

 

As for teams in the UEFA Cup out performing teams in the European Cup....so ****.  It has always been the competition for the individual Champions of Europe, that's why it was initially called the European Champions Cup, which became the UEFA Champions League in 1992.  It's never called the European Champions and 2nd, 3rd and 4th placed League.  The reason all of Liverpool's, Madrid's, AFC Ajax, FC Bayern Munchen's successes were so special is, they not only proved they were the best side in their domestic competition but also against all the other Champions from the previous season.  Say in 1985, when Everton won the league, (I'm not having a dig at Heysel here), but if that event hadn't of occured you think Liverpool should've been involved in the European Cup for the 85/86 season, because they were a better side?  It's a joke argument.

 

Rafa is right to point out in 2001 and 2004, the last 16 got a bit interesting, but that shit is few and far between.  Look when we were in it after our 16 year absence it was class, we got on paper a tough Belgian side even though we pissed them, and in the SECOND ROUND end up against one of Spain's strongest sides, who eventually put us out on away goals, and if we'd won that we'd have had Parma, who were 2nd in Serie A, in the THIRD ROUND!  That's the way it was always meant to be.  Contrast that to our three opening opponents in 2004/2005, some suicide bombers from Palestine, Bnei Sakhnin, a side full of real life Borat Sagidyev's but with less talent, Tblisi and fuckin a side full of Greek waiters, Panionios, who ended up relegated!!  Yet you can sit there and tell me the European format in it's present state is working??!?!?!!?

 

Greed has killed it.  It's been shite since 1999 on the whole, which also coiincided with the bigger nations have four CL sides instead of four.  UEFA killed it, greed killed it, and to me anyone that says the CL should be for the best four sides in a country has no appreciation for how football was, and is a product of UEFA and Rupert Murdoch's greed.

 

That's an incredibly fucking stupid, racist and ignorant comment. Undermines the rest of your post, which I thought was spot on.

[Guest kingdawson]

If we manage to win the Uefa cup ill be a very very happy person. I guess big teams like newcastle have more important trophies to worry about :roll: :roll:. Says a lot when certain newcastle fans have the audacity to think there somewhat bigger then the competition itself. Come back to me when you actually manage to reach the top half of the premiership table.

[iklgizmo]

If we manage to win the Uefa cup ill be a very very happy person. I guess big teams like newcastle have more important trophies to worry about :roll: :roll:. Says a lot when certain newcastle fans have the audacity to think there somewhat bigger then the competition itself. Come back to me when you actually manage to reach the top half of the premiership table.

 

first ov all, were not saying that were bigger than the competition, just that it is shit untill the latter stages.

 

second ov all, why dont you come back when you have had a bit more experience of the competition than 3 games in the last god knows how long

[Guest kingdawson]

 

http://www.fansfc.com/tottenhamhotspurfootballclub/board/message.asp?ID=101388

 

Normally I do not partake in the everlasting "who supports the bigger club debate", however I have been so sickened by certain Spur fans on various websites this week that I feel it necessary to set the record straight. Despite being a Newcastle fan the FACTS that I present below are simply that, and I will (begrudgingly) give credit where it is due to Spurs. However, I write this knowing that the intelligent reader can be left with only one conclusion:

 

So first you need to consider what makes a bigger club, Success & History? Support? Financial power? Top Class Players - I will consider all of these and more:

 

Success (Historical - here I only consider major honors)

So Spurs won the League twice (1951, 1961), the FA Cup on 8 occasions (1901, 1921, 1961, 1962, 1967, 1981, 1982, 1991), then league cup 3 times (1971, 1973, 1999) the UEFA cup on 2 occasions (1972, 1984) and

finally the now defunct European Cup Winners Cup in 1963

 

Newcastle on the other hand won the league on 4 occasions (1905, 1907, 1909, 1927), the FA cup on 6 occasions (1910, 1924, 1932, 1951, 1952, 1955) and the EUFA Cup in 1969.

 

Therefore it has to be conceded that in terms of historical success Newcastle were more successful in the League but Spurs were more successful in domestic and European trophies as well as overall.

 

If you want to look at this in decades

1900-1910 Spurs 1 FA, Newcastle 2 League + 1 FA

1911-1920 N/A

1921-1930 Spurs 1 FA, Newcastle 1 League + 1 FA

1931-1940 Newcastle 1 FA

1941-1950 N/A

This proves that Newcastle were more successful during the first half of the last Century.

 

1951-1960 Spurs 1 League, Newcastle 3 FA Cups

1961-1970 Spurs 1 League & Cup Double + 2 other FA cups and the Cup Winners Cup, Newcastle 1 UEFA cup

1971-1980 Spurs 2 League Cups and 1 UEFA cups

1981-1990 Spurs 2 FA Cups & 1 UEFA cup

1991-2000 Spurs 1 FA cup & 1 League cup

So Spurs were undoubtedly more successful during the 2nd half of the last century. I guess you are all screaming that success is the only criteria for a big club...well stop for a minute and lets consider more recent events:

 

The Premiership has now run for 14 years, during that time Spurs have been ever present while Newcastle missed the opening (92-93) season as the were busy winning division 1 at the time. So we have 13 years of

shared premiership history, during that time Newcastle have finished above Spurs on 9 occasions and within the top four on 5 occasions, Spurs have never finish in the top four. In the Premier league all time list Newcastle are

5th, Spurs are 7th despite Newcastle having one season outside the Premiership. Therefore, in the premier league Newcastle have been by far the more successful club.

 

These days it could also be easily argued that qualification for European competition is a criteria for success, after all it is what all teams want to achieve, bring in huge revenues and is one of the principal deciding factors

when trying to sign top class players, again Newcastle are more successful in recent time based on this criteria. They currently stand in 18th Place in the UEFA Co-efficient, Spurs are not actually even listed, however based

on their co-efficient points of 20.950, they would be rank 118. Newcastle have also qualified for the Champions league on 2 occasions, making the second group stages on one of these.

 

Therefore since the inception of the Premier league it is clear that Newcastle are the more successful club both domestically and abroad. In conclusion we can see that spurs have a better overall history but today Newcastle

are in the ascendancy.

 

Now lets look at Stadiums & Fans, in terms of stadiums and attendances there is no comparison Spurs have a capacity of 36,240 whereas Newcastle can accommodate 52,387. That is an extra 16,147 bums on seat at

Newcastle, for the last 2 seasons both stadiums have achieved 99-100% occupancy during the last 2 seasons, but looking back to the beginning of the premier league you see any interesting trend:

 

Newcastle achieved 99-100% occupancy in 95-96, 96-97, 97-98, 99-00 (often listed as approx 70% but during this season stadium was being expanded to 37000-52000 the additional seats were not available) 02-03 and 03-04,

for every season bar one attendance was above 95% (NUFC's first in the premiership attendance was 92%) . Therefore despite losing the title and 2 cup finals, despite Gullit, Dalgliesh, Souness and Sky TV, St James park

was always at least 90% full on average 98.77% full during Newcastle's time in the PL.

 

Looking at Spurs attendances during this time

During the 93-94 & 94-95 seasons Spurs filled 82% of their seats, in 95-96 season 92%, in 96-97 season 94%, in 97-98 season 81%, in 98-99 season 94% in 99-00 season 96%, in 01-02 season 97% in 02-03 season

99% and in 03-04 season 96%. So Spurs often failed to achieve 90% occupancy and their overall average attendance is only 93.15%. Note unfortunately I don't have exact figures for 00-01 season but it appear both clubs

averaged 99-100% occupancy, for my overall averages I used 99% as the figure for both clubs for this season.

 

So by the criteria of Stadium and Fans, Newcastle are victorious.

 

I can hear the cogs whirring in Spurs fans brains from here, looking for an excuse to this. One of the most common is "but Newcastle is a one club city whereas London has many clubs vying for a punters support". At first

glance that appears to make some sense, but lets look a little deeper at that theory. There are 5 other London clubs in the PL (Arsenal, Chelsea, Fulham, Charlton and West Ham), 3 in the championship (Crystal Palace,

Luton & QPR) 2 in League 1 (Leyton Orient & Millwall) and none in league 2 . So 10 London Clubs in the PL + football league. London has a population of 7.5 Million whereas Newcastle has a population of approximately

275,000. Assuming each person in London is equally likely to support any London club each club has a potential fan base in their home city of 750,000, already nearly three time the entire population of Newcastle. Only 1/20th

of that 750,000 (or 1 /200 of the population of London) is needed to fill White Hart Lane, however 1/5 of the population of the Newcastle is needed to fill St James Park, and unlike the Londoners they gladly oblige!!

 

I rest my case on that Criteria, So on to Finances, this is an easy one: Newcastle were the 12 richest club in the world based on the 2004-2005 season, Spurs were 13 the same year, close you may say...yes if you

consider an additional 16.4 Million in revenue per year close ;-). Last season Newcastle remained 12th while Spurs dropped to 15th. Interestingly Forbes lists the value of Spurs team as $214 million and the value of NUFC

as $302 million. So NUFC have more money and more valuable players.

 

Speaking of players that is my final criteria, I am not going to bothering arguing if Given is better than Robinson (but he is) all I will say is this, Newcastle can attract world class talent due to our huge stadium, amazing fan

base, regular participation in Europe and financial clout. Basically all the reason I show above as proof we are a bigger club than Spurs help us to keep it that way. This is why we can attract the likes of Shearer, Owen, Ginola,

Asprilla, Duff and Martins to Newcastle and why given the choice they all would choose us above Spurs. Hang n I hear another typical Spurs response "yes but you pay over the odds in wages that is the only reason why you

attract players". Admittedly Newcastle do spend a lot on wages and that may be a reason why a player may choose us over say Liverpool, but I doubt that is why players would choose us over Spurs as we have ever other

advantage anyway.

 

Once Newcastle were forced to sell their better players but these days are now over and Spurs have been buying our cast-off for the last few years (Ginola, Jenas), and have also now proved that they are a selling club by letting

Carrick go.

 

So in conclusion Spurs have a rich history but Newcastle have the recent past the present and the foreseeable future

 

I must say I am liking my lips in anticipation of the mindless responses from those who wish only to misread what I wrote or call me a muppet or something if I missed a London club from my list, in a way it makes victory more

satisfying. Seriously thought if any Spurs fans can rationally counter this I would love to read it.

 

Interesting read that like.

 

actually that would have been an interesting read if it wasnt innacurate. This geordie seems to have it in hes mind that newcastle apparantly won the uefa cup 61 to 70's era. Sadly for you guys that didnt actually happen. Its a sad day when you have to make up scenarios to make your history appear more exciting. For all the people who either didnt know or forgot, you lot havent actually won a single trophy since 1955 (i know i keep repeating this but this article proves to me that some of you are clueless on this FACT). OH wait a minute i was wrong and i appologise, you guys actually won the 'Texaco cup' in 74 and 75, the 'Anglo-italian cup' in 73, the inter-city fairs cup in 69 and last but definatly not least the 'intertoto cup' in 2006.

[peasepud]

actually that would have been an interesting read if it wasnt innacurate. This geordie seems to have it in hes mind that newcastle apparantly won the uefa cup 61 to 70's era. Sadly for you guys that didnt actually happen. Its a sad day when you have to make up scenarios to make your history appear more exciting. For all the people who either didnt know or forgot, you lot havent actually won a single trophy since 1955 (i know i keep repeating this but this article proves to me that some of you are clueless on this FACT). OH wait a minute i was wrong and i appologise, you guys actually won the 'Texaco cup' in 74 and 75, the 'Anglo-italian cup' in 73, the inter-city fairs cup in 69 and last but definatly not least the 'intertoto cup' in 2006.

 

yup yup rabbit yup yup yup rabbit rabbit bunny jabber yup rabbit bunny yup yup yup rabbit bunny jabber yup yup yup rabbit bunny jabber yup yup bunny jabber rabbit rabbit rabbit ......

http://www.bbc.co.uk/herefordandworcester/content/images/2005/07/12/chas_dave_203_203x152.jpg

[Guest JamesD]

pretty sure that the inter-city fairs cup=uefa cup..

[The Bonk]

 

http://www.fansfc.com/tottenhamhotspurfootballclub/board/message.asp?ID=101388

 

Normally I do not partake in the everlasting "who supports the bigger club debate", however I have been so sickened by certain Spur fans on various websites this week that I feel it necessary to set the record straight. Despite being a Newcastle fan the FACTS that I present below are simply that, and I will (begrudgingly) give credit where it is due to Spurs. However, I write this knowing that the intelligent reader can be left with only one conclusion:

 

So first you need to consider what makes a bigger club, Success & History? Support? Financial power? Top Class Players - I will consider all of these and more:

 

Success (Historical - here I only consider major honors)

So Spurs won the League twice (1951, 1961), the FA Cup on 8 occasions (1901, 1921, 1961, 1962, 1967, 1981, 1982, 1991), then league cup 3 times (1971, 1973, 1999) the UEFA cup on 2 occasions (1972, 1984) and

finally the now defunct European Cup Winners Cup in 1963

 

Newcastle on the other hand won the league on 4 occasions (1905, 1907, 1909, 1927), the FA cup on 6 occasions (1910, 1924, 1932, 1951, 1952, 1955) and the EUFA Cup in 1969.

 

Therefore it has to be conceded that in terms of historical success Newcastle were more successful in the League but Spurs were more successful in domestic and European trophies as well as overall.

 

If you want to look at this in decades

1900-1910 Spurs 1 FA, Newcastle 2 League + 1 FA

1911-1920 N/A

1921-1930 Spurs 1 FA, Newcastle 1 League + 1 FA

1931-1940 Newcastle 1 FA

1941-1950 N/A

This proves that Newcastle were more successful during the first half of the last Century.

 

1951-1960 Spurs 1 League, Newcastle 3 FA Cups

1961-1970 Spurs 1 League & Cup Double + 2 other FA cups and the Cup Winners Cup, Newcastle 1 UEFA cup

1971-1980 Spurs 2 League Cups and 1 UEFA cups

1981-1990 Spurs 2 FA Cups & 1 UEFA cup

1991-2000 Spurs 1 FA cup & 1 League cup

So Spurs were undoubtedly more successful during the 2nd half of the last century. I guess you are all screaming that success is the only criteria for a big club...well stop for a minute and lets consider more recent events:

 

The Premiership has now run for 14 years, during that time Spurs have been ever present while Newcastle missed the opening (92-93) season as the were busy winning division 1 at the time. So we have 13 years of

shared premiership history, during that time Newcastle have finished above Spurs on 9 occasions and within the top four on 5 occasions, Spurs have never finish in the top four. In the Premier league all time list Newcastle are

5th, Spurs are 7th despite Newcastle having one season outside the Premiership. Therefore, in the premier league Newcastle have been by far the more successful club.

 

These days it could also be easily argued that qualification for European competition is a criteria for success, after all it is what all teams want to achieve, bring in huge revenues and is one of the principal deciding factors

when trying to sign top class players, again Newcastle are more successful in recent time based on this criteria. They currently stand in 18th Place in the UEFA Co-efficient, Spurs are not actually even listed, however based

on their co-efficient points of 20.950, they would be rank 118. Newcastle have also qualified for the Champions league on 2 occasions, making the second group stages on one of these.

 

Therefore since the inception of the Premier league it is clear that Newcastle are the more successful club both domestically and abroad. In conclusion we can see that spurs have a better overall history but today Newcastle

are in the ascendancy.

 

Now lets look at Stadiums & Fans, in terms of stadiums and attendances there is no comparison Spurs have a capacity of 36,240 whereas Newcastle can accommodate 52,387. That is an extra 16,147 bums on seat at

Newcastle, for the last 2 seasons both stadiums have achieved 99-100% occupancy during the last 2 seasons, but looking back to the beginning of the premier league you see any interesting trend:

 

Newcastle achieved 99-100% occupancy in 95-96, 96-97, 97-98, 99-00 (often listed as approx 70% but during this season stadium was being expanded to 37000-52000 the additional seats were not available) 02-03 and 03-04,

for every season bar one attendance was above 95% (NUFC's first in the premiership attendance was 92%) . Therefore despite losing the title and 2 cup finals, despite Gullit, Dalgliesh, Souness and Sky TV, St James park

was always at least 90% full on average 98.77% full during Newcastle's time in the PL.

 

Looking at Spurs attendances during this time

During the 93-94 & 94-95 seasons Spurs filled 82% of their seats, in 95-96 season 92%, in 96-97 season 94%, in 97-98 season 81%, in 98-99 season 94% in 99-00 season 96%, in 01-02 season 97% in 02-03 season

99% and in 03-04 season 96%. So Spurs often failed to achieve 90% occupancy and their overall average attendance is only 93.15%. Note unfortunately I don't have exact figures for 00-01 season but it appear both clubs

averaged 99-100% occupancy, for my overall averages I used 99% as the figure for both clubs for this season.

 

So by the criteria of Stadium and Fans, Newcastle are victorious.

 

I can hear the cogs whirring in Spurs fans brains from here, looking for an excuse to this. One of the most common is "but Newcastle is a one club city whereas London has many clubs vying for a punters support". At first

glance that appears to make some sense, but lets look a little deeper at that theory. There are 5 other London clubs in the PL (Arsenal, Chelsea, Fulham, Charlton and West Ham), 3 in the championship (Crystal Palace,

Luton & QPR) 2 in League 1 (Leyton Orient & Millwall) and none in league 2 . So 10 London Clubs in the PL + football league. London has a population of 7.5 Million whereas Newcastle has a population of approximately

275,000. Assuming each person in London is equally likely to support any London club each club has a potential fan base in their home city of 750,000, already nearly three time the entire population of Newcastle. Only 1/20th

of that 750,000 (or 1 /200 of the population of London) is needed to fill White Hart Lane, however 1/5 of the population of the Newcastle is needed to fill St James Park, and unlike the Londoners they gladly oblige!!

 

I rest my case on that Criteria, So on to Finances, this is an easy one: Newcastle were the 12 richest club in the world based on the 2004-2005 season, Spurs were 13 the same year, close you may say...yes if you

consider an additional 16.4 Million in revenue per year close ;-). Last season Newcastle remained 12th while Spurs dropped to 15th. Interestingly Forbes lists the value of Spurs team as $214 million and the value of NUFC

as $302 million. So NUFC have more money and more valuable players.

 

Speaking of players that is my final criteria, I am not going to bothering arguing if Given is better than Robinson (but he is) all I will say is this, Newcastle can attract world class talent due to our huge stadium, amazing fan

base, regular participation in Europe and financial clout. Basically all the reason I show above as proof we are a bigger club than Spurs help us to keep it that way. This is why we can attract the likes of Shearer, Owen, Ginola,

Asprilla, Duff and Martins to Newcastle and why given the choice they all would choose us above Spurs. Hang n I hear another typical Spurs response "yes but you pay over the odds in wages that is the only reason why you

attract players". Admittedly Newcastle do spend a lot on wages and that may be a reason why a player may choose us over say Liverpool, but I doubt that is why players would choose us over Spurs as we have ever other

advantage anyway.

 

Once Newcastle were forced to sell their better players but these days are now over and Spurs have been buying our cast-off for the last few years (Ginola, Jenas), and have also now proved that they are a selling club by letting

Carrick go.

 

So in conclusion Spurs have a rich history but Newcastle have the recent past the present and the foreseeable future

 

I must say I am liking my lips in anticipation of the mindless responses from those who wish only to misread what I wrote or call me a muppet or something if I missed a London club from my list, in a way it makes victory more

satisfying. Seriously thought if any Spurs fans can rationally counter this I would love to read it.

 

Interesting read that like.

 

actually that would have been an interesting read if it wasnt innacurate. This geordie seems to have it in hes mind that newcastle apparantly won the uefa cup 61 to 70's era. Sadly for you guys that didnt actually happen. Its a sad day when you have to make up scenarios to make your history appear more exciting. For all the people who either didnt know or forgot, you lot havent actually won a single trophy since 1955 (i know i keep repeating this but this article proves to me that some of you are clueless on this FACT). OH wait a minute i was wrong and i appologise, you guys actually won the 'Texaco cup' in 74 and 75, the 'Anglo-italian cup' in 73, the inter-city fairs cup in 69 and last but definatly not least the 'intertoto cup' in 2006.

 

Where's yours?

[peasepud]

pretty sure that the inter-city fairs cup=uefa cup..

 

yup however daft lad thinks it doesnt count.  :roll:

[Baggio]

pretty sure that the inter-city fairs cup=uefa cup..

 

[indi]

pretty sure that the inter-city fairs cup=uefa cup..

 

Ironic isn't it: him going on about people not knowing their facts, when in fact he hasn't got a clue what he's talking about.

[Guest JamesD]

shit, and im a 19 year old yank...

[Guest kingdawson]

the inter-city fairs cup replaced the uefa cup in the 70's (i think) so if you won the competition in the 60's how the hell have you won the uefa cup? tell the loser to tell the truth next time. Face it the guy was embarrased to call it 'inter city fairs cup', cant blame him though.

[Baggio]

Kingdawson > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPr-t1d_Vk0

 

 

[Guest JamesD]

the inter-city fairs cup replaced the uefa cup in the 70's (i think) so if you won the competition in the 60's how the hell have you won the uefa cup? tell the loser to tell the truth next time. Face it the guy was embarrased to call it 'inter city fairs cup', cant blame him though.

same competition, different name.